Obama’s slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different – not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.
If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism.
You’re right to note that Obama, too, "has plans," but frankly, when it comes to electing a president, I don’t care so much about that. Congress will have a legislative agenda, and they will (or they won’t) implement it. The president’s agenda too often is set by someone else, like al-Qaeda. And when that time comes, I want a measured, principled, reflective president with a rigorous intellect who will capably work with people on either side of the aisle to ensure that the right decisions are made. What I don’t want is a partisan warrior for whom political power and public service have become all but indistinguishable. That’s why I’m backing Obama. It’s also why I’ll make McCain the first Republican ever to get my presidential vote if the race comes down to him and Senator Clinton.
My feelings entirely. My leaning toward Obama has a lot to do with his even temperament, his ability to listen, his powerful persuasive faculties and his judgment. Those are the qualities I look for in a president.
John Cole implies that Obama doesn’t. That’s simply not true. On every major policy area, their plans are very similar and just as detailed. You want to find candidates without many plans? Look at the Republicans. Just because Obama can inspire with rhetoric does not mean he doesn’t have specific proposals on everything from taxes to healthcare to the environment. Mind-numbingly detailed plans.
Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton — inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30’s, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90’s, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her ‘victory’ speech. We made a pact last that we all followed through on this morning — logging on to BarackObama.com and donating $100 each to his campaign (this is the first time ANY of us has donated money to a campaign). Oh, and did I mention we’re all New Yorkers?
The exit poll data does not suggest that Clinton won on a last-minute wave. Yes, she narrowly won those who decided on the day – 39 – 36. But Obama won every other period in the last month. Clinton’s biggest margin was among those who had made up their minds more than a month ago – by 48 – 31. This was a victory based on the old party machine, the core partisan Democrats, and the Clinton loyalists. She takes the Democrats back to a bunkered partisan posture. It would be a disaster for them up against McCain in November. Or as one reader put it:
Lets see … A minority candidate of near-unprecedented rhetorical skill whom even the Republicans fear has a chance to reunite the country versus a party hack riding a wave of nepotism and backroom arm twisting.
Some home truths: a tough, long primary battle will take the sting out of the powerful backlash that he is the function of a fad of euphoria, marketing hype, or gas-baggery. It will take the edge off the criticism that he is untested. It will help him prove his mettle and endurance.
His coolness in response to adversity is one of his stronger personal attributes. This could be highlighted.
No question: he and Michelle were getting a little cocky. Time to let some of the air out of that balloon. Again: fighting for it will make him a better candidate and a better president.
In a long, drawn out battle with the Clintons, Obama will have a lot of cheering from the Republican and Independent sections of the crowd. If he beats Clinton not in a sudden burst of fervor, but in a long, brutal war for delegates, then all the more reason why Republicans and Independents will come to him in the fall.
Ross takes me to task for downplaying Obama’s liberalism. That’s a little unfair for a blogger who wrote last May:
He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I’ve heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what’s left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to.
I don’t expect the Democrats to be the party of limited government. But any reward for the Republicans after the massive expansion of government power and spending under Bush would be much more fatal. Because it would destroy even the potential for a party of limited government in the future – by ceding the GOP to spendthrift Christianists. So voting for Obama to punish the GOP and then hope for a revival of conservatism in the ashes doesn’t seem like such a contradiction to me. I find it staggering that commentators on the right who have said virtually nothing about Bush’s nanny-statism and fiscal irresponsibility these past few years start raising these issues immediately with Obama. Yes, Bill Bennett, I’m looking at you. I’m sorry but you have zero credibility on these matters. And neither do most of the Beltway Republican punditocracy.
I also just think that Obama is a pragmatic liberal. His judgments in the past have been largely practical and reasonable. He is not an ideologue. Nor is he an excessive partisan. Those qualities are admirable from a conservative point of view. As for Burkeanism, I agree it can be an amorphous concept. Because it allows for a great deal of lee-way for prudence to determine particular judgments in history, it allows for minimal change and maximal change within its boundaries. I don’t think this makes it meaningless as a concept. It is the way a society changes that Burke was interested in. He backed the huge change of the American revolution, for example. And all we’re talking about with Obama is a prudent response to an ill-begotten war, some measures to tackle a failing healthcare system and an attempt to tackle the emergent problem of climate change. And all in a spirit of national reconciliation. This is no Robespierre, Ross.
Ross claims there is still some space to the left of Bush. Sure – but much less than there was eight years ago. Put it this way: if a Democratic president had added $32 trillion to the next generation’s debt in eight years, if he’d bungled a war, if he’d abrogated habeas corpus indefinitely and authorized torture, do you think a Republican would be criticized as a leftist for wanting to withdraw troops, and extend healthcare insurance – without mandates – for more of the working poor?
Come off it. There are two possible solutions to GOP degeneracy: Obama and McCain. As of last week, there appeared only one: Obama.
The Dish 